State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Madhu Chopra W/O Late Ashok Kumar Chopra vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 16 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1477 of 2003
Date of institution: 04.11.2003
Date of decision : 16.12.2009
Madhu Chopra w/o Late Ashok Kumar Chopra, 52/75, Green Model Town,
Jalandhar City.
.....Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, "Jeevan Parkash", Model
Town Road, Jalandhar - 144 001 through its Senior Divisional Manager.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 10.09.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for Sh.K.C.Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Paramjit Batta, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Ashok Kumar Chopra husband of Madhu Chopra appellant had taken the life insurance policy with accident benefit from the respondents on 15.9.1998 for an amount of Rs.1 lac. He died on 30.12.1998. The insurance claim lodged by the appellant with the respondents was repudiated by them. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short "the District Forum") for insurance claim.
Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
2. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that Ashok Kumar Chopra had taken the life insurance policy with accident benefit. It was First Appeal No.1477 of 2003 2 also not disputed that said Ashok Kumar had died on 30.12.1998. It was pleaded that Ashok Kumar Chopra had committed suicide on 30.12.1998. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim was legal and valid. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3. The appellant filed her affidavit Ex.C/1 and additional affidavit Ex.C/2. She also filed the affidavit of Pardeep Kumar Chopra as Ex.C/3, the affidavit of Inder Kumar as Ex.C/4 and the affidavit of Surinder Nath Sehgal as Ex.C/5. The appellant also proved documents Ex.C/6 to Ex.C/20. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Amarjit Singh Sud, Manager (Claims) as Ex.O1, the affidavit of Tehal Dass, Manager (Legal HPF) as Ex.O2 and Dr.Pawan Gupta, M.D. as Ex.O3 and the affidavit of Rishi Kumar Arya (Dr) M.D. as Ex.O4. The respondents also proved documents Ex.O5 to Ex.O27.
4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.9.2003.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2003 be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
9. The admitted facts are that Ashok Kumar Chopra had taken the life insurance policy from the respondents with accident benefit on 15.9.1998 for an amount of Rs.1 lac. It is also admitted between the parties that Ashok Kumar Chopra life assured had died on 30.12.1998.
10. However, the version of the appellant was that he has died a natural death while the version of the respondents was that he has committed suicide. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any insurance claim. First Appeal No.1477 of 2003 3
11. The death of Ashok Kumar Chopra was duly registered in Police Station Purani Abadi Ganganagar and the dead body of Ashok Kumar was got subjected to post mortem examination. The post mortem report has been proved as Ex.O6. The viscera of Ashok Kumar deceased was taken from Stomach, intestine, Liver, Spleen, Kidney, Lung and Brain. It was sent for test to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. The report has been proved as Ex.O7. It was reported in the report that on chemical examination, the portions of Viscera gave positive tests for the presence of Aluminium Phosphide. It clearly, means, therefore that Ashok Kumar Chopra had consumed some poisonous substance which proved fatal.
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that as per the post mortem report Ex.O6, Ashok Kumar Chopra had died because of brain haemorrhage and, therefore, the suicide has been ruled out.
13. This submission has been considered.
14. It has no merits, at all.
15. The Medical Board has rather reported on the post mortem report Ex.O6 that the cause of death would be given after the receipt of the Chemical and Histopathological report of Viscera. As discussed above, this report has revealed that the poisonous substance was found inside the vital organs of the body of the life assured. Therefore, the post mortem report dated 31.12.1998 Ex.O6 does not prove if the life assured had died a natural death by brain haemorrhage. Rather the post mortem report was subjected to the report of the Chemical Examiner which proves that the life assured had consumed some poisonous substance. It clearly means, therefore that he had committed suicide.
16. Besides that the respondents have also proved the affidavit of Dr.Rishi Kumar Arya, M.D. as Ex.O4 who has deposed in the affidavit that as per the report of the post mortem and of the State Forensic Science Laboratory dated 14.3.2000, Ashok Kumar Chopra had died due to Aluminium Phosphide which was a poisonous substance. It was taken by external consumption. Similarly, First Appeal No.1477 of 2003 4 Dr.Pawan Gupta, M.D. in his affidavit Ex.O3 has deposed that as per the report of the Chemical Examiner as well as the post mortem report, Ashok Kumar Chopra had died due to Aluminium Phosphide. Therefore, these facts revealed that the life assured had committed suicide.
17. It is not disputed that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the respondents would not be entitled to insurance claim if it is proved that the life assured had committed suicide.
18. In view of the discussions held above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.12.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER December 16, 2009.
Paritosh